D&D 4E 4E: The day the game ate the roleplayer?

[ruleslawyer]

What's third edition got to do with it?

Assuming for a moment that this were a serious comment (obviously I get the emoticon!), the poster's use of tense ("is trying to") implies that this putative WoW-ization/anime-ization of D&D is new and all about 4e. Hence the response that 3e has similar elements to those the poster is decrying.

 

[Wolfspider]

Assuming for a moment that this were a serious comment (obviously I get the emoticon!), the poster's use of tense ("is trying to") implies that this putative WoW-ization/anime-ization of D&D is new and all about 4e. Hence the response that 3e has similar elements to those the poster is decrying.

Really? Well, that is an interesting way of reading "is trying to," that's for sure.

By the way, my comment was serious...mostly. I see a lot of posters falling back on 3rd edition whenever someone makes a criticism of 4e, even when it really has nothing to do with 3rd edition. It's a pet peeve of mine.

Yes, sometimes people are using a double standard, coming down hard on D&D 4e but giving 3e a clean pass on the same thing. But not always, and not really that often from what I've observed.

 

[The Little Raven]

"[3rd Edition/3.5/4th Edition] is too [anime/comic book/MMO/video game/board game/war game/card game/gamist/simulationist/narrativist/sexist/yadda yadda yadda]."

The more things change the more they stay the same.

 

[Wolfspider]

Nothing new under the sun, and all that.

 

[PoeticJustice]

Somewhat of a digression---

Now, has anyone successfully sat a new player down and intrigued them with rules? I've never had anyone come up and say, "I want to learn about Iterative Attacks and Vancian Casting". On the other hand, when I talk to friends about Haunted Castles and Forgotten Tombs, more often than not I get interest. Not always a new player, but interest.

In my experience, the weakness of D&D is that there are rules to learn, while it's strength is the imaginative appeal lying in utero within the PHB. A good teacher will emphasize the creative aspects of the game to new players before mentioning the minutiae with which we distract ourselves regardless of edition being taught.

Despite this, I don't mean to say that we don't need rules to govern play; one the other hand, I think the potential for complexity in 3.5 is exaggerated. It's only as complex as you like. All a player really needs to know on day one is how to read and add. If they'll stay past day one, take it from there. Lend them your books. Some players will be self-taught, others you'll have to instruct constantly. As long as you're enjoying the experience and the newbie is too, try not to worry.

This will not change with Fourth Edition. It will never change. Remember that the rules are as much the enemy as they are the tool.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Really? Well, that is an interesting way of reading "is trying to," that's for sure.

It is the correct way of reading "is trying to." Present progressive, you know. That means that we're talking about what is happening, i.e. developing circumstances, rather than what has happened.

It's generally better to snark when you have the facts on your side.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Why wouldn't WotC care? Wouldn't coming up with new terms and descriptions strengthen D&D's brand identity?

I do not think that power names or the names for special materials have any impact on WotC brand identity. I can see the case for Mind Flayers or Beholders (and Flumph?) or maybe Dragonborn in the future. They have a unique look, and "meeting" them in game is a major event, they are stuff that you can put on your cover and that will make people talk about it.

But Feyweave? Dragon Tail Cut? Boneshard Skeleton?
Who cares about that? It certainly doesn't need copyright or trademark protection.

No, the reason why WotC is making up all these names is because if you want to create a lot of "special effects" - being powers, materials, monsters, you need a name. And you don't want to run out of names, so you start with a naming scheme that gives you lot of options...

 

[Wolfspider]

It is the correct way of reading "is trying to." Present progressive, you know. That means that we're talking about what is happening, i.e. developing circumstances, rather than what has happened.

It's generally better to snark when you have the facts on your side.

I wasn't being snarky, actually.

I just don't see how the tense explains how mentioning third edition in the above post is at all relevant.

Anyway, it's no biggie. The tactic of bringing up 3rd edition to defend criticism of 4e is already entrenched, so it's futile for me to worry about it.

By the way, I've been teaching English grammar at the college level for 11 years, so I'm quite familiar with present progressive tense.

 

[cdrcjsn]

Despite this, I don't mean to say that we don't need rules to govern play; one the other hand, I think the potential for complexity in 3.5 is exaggerated. It's only as complex as you like. All a player really needs to know on day one is how to read and add. If they'll stay past day one, take it from there. Lend them your books. Some players will be self-taught, others you'll have to instruct constantly. As long as you're enjoying the experience and the newbie is too, try not to worry.

I agree with you, but I think this is where 4E will outshine 3E.

Just based on the DDXP comments regarding 1st level 4E characters, they certainly seem more dynamic and fun than playing a 3E 1st level character.

From my experience, most new players won't be as strong with the role playing aspect of the game, so will tend to concentrate on the combat rules and judge the game based mostly on that. If that part of the game is fun, intuitive and easy to learn, then there is a greater chance of that new player sticking around and growing into the role playing aspect of the game.

I've run gamedays and conventions for the RPGA for several years now and have seen literally hundreds of different people's playstyles. The above is the general view I get from newcomers to the hobby (both youngsters and adults). Thinking back to when I first started playing with the basic boxed set, I certainly recall being more interested with my Elf's weapons than his family history.

 

[PoeticJustice]

From my experience, most new players won't be as strong with the role playing aspect of the game, so will tend to concentrate on the combat rules and judge the game based mostly on that. If that part of the game is fun, intuitive and easy to learn, then there is a greater chance of that new player sticking around and growing into the role playing aspect of the game.

I think that depends on the kind of player getting involved. I doubt any of the people I've taught D&D recently would go to a convention. Oh well, guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

However, I do think we can both agree that the newcomer primarily wants Adventure (with a capital A) and that the rules only have to be as involved in delivering that experience as the DM feels is necessary.

I actually think 4E will outshine 3E in teachability too; it seems that was one of the primary design goals (and a really smart one, at that). Despite that, I haven't had so much difficulty teaching 3.5 that I'd switch purely for that reason.